I honestly appreciate you sharing this movie with us all. It seems to run short of the original run time and is quite pixelated in some spots. Shame. OH and as far as the comments about it not being in public domain, IMDB lists this movie as being in PD as well as some other sources so...

but where is the end movie

I really love this Frankenstein version, flaws included.
Considering it was done in the 70s, with obviously no Hollywood budget....this is done pretty well.
This comment is not meant to give a critic, since I am no expert in cinema. But I do understand human anatomy and surgery.
The part where Dr. Frankenstein performs the operation was well recreated, the process is believable. The " life-giving fluid" is specially nasty. Why? It looks like a human fluid - I am not going to enter into details unless you ask for :) -
From the beginning, we know this will turn wrong: the brain is ruined and all the sequence should be stopped. Frankstein is no innocent in this version. He does not give a damn about the creature.
Bats are flying all over the experimental " subject" like flies, thunderstorm on its peak. A bat or two seem to roast and drop over the dead body - who blinks still -.
The moral of the " creator" is weak, as it should be...perfection is not an issue any longer.
Success and revenge against the dear colleagues is The Priority.
If I were at his place, I would be doing exactly the same: the face can be exchanged, the brain...we will see. Fix it later...

First things first: get him alive!!!!!!
Doctors think this way. With real human beings. Every day.

The part where the hand starts moving looks like a bag of worms to me. Very scary and clear...muscles are still confused.

Creature is not bad at all, considering that his head have been open like a boiled egg couple of minutes ago.
He can move stiff as we all love to see...and obeys orders at once. That is far more than a real human could do after a lightening strike.

The rest, I will not tell because some people rather reads comments than watching the film. That would be a shame.

I like this film very much, cliche from idiot female apart. It is part of the genre.

Will watch this more than once...and download. Really happy with this horror masterpiece of the 70s.

What a cinephile might expect from a film in this genre at this time in terms of quality. People look jaundiced in a lot of this print. One star for the sick, gratuitous, pillow smother Big O scene. Some naked chicks. Not in the pubic domain.

mel welles was(and maybe still is)a very talented actor/
he worked a lot as a voice actor and looping director on overseas productions,it's very likely he had nothing to do with the actual direction of this film,except supervising,the english language dubbing,and perhaps looping some of the voices himself.

It's not in the Public Domain. I got a complaint from the European Company that owns the rights to this film. Don't give these people a penny of money until they get their act together.

As one reviewer already stated, this film had potential but didn't go for the brass ring. Lady Frankenstein loves the brain of one man and the body of another. So, she convinces her brainy love to kill the dim-witted but handsome stable boy so she can swap out his brain with the smart one. This is done so the new man can kill the escaped monster her father created. That's where it makes no sense.

We could've had an interesting film about physical vs. mental attraction and which would win out in the end, but instead it turns into a monster fight with an abrupt ending.

Mickey Hargitay has a nice role as the police captain, although he seems too "American" to be a police captain in a European village.

I really enjoyed this film, I'm a big fan of European horror, so I may be a bit biased. The acting is pretty solid, it's hard to go wrong with Joseph Cotton (Citizen Kane), and Paul Muller. It reminds me a little of the Hammer films made around this time, and also of the Jess Franco films. If you enjoy 60s and 70s European horror films, then this is a must see. It has plenty of violence, nudity, and is just plain fun to watch.

Nice clear print, good audio, but the color balance is a bit askew.

Am I the only one that thinks the guy with the bottle (at the start) looks like Al Pacino?

Ends abruptly....no closing credits.

Worth a look, though, if not just for the jugs.

Hello Lady Monster

I love this movie! I watch it all the time. It's very funny,lol. That drunk dude,always makes me laugh. I recommand this movie to anyone. Not a bad movie, for the early 70's lol.

This movie actually had a great potential. The opening scene with the grave robbers, the Baron and the arrival of the daughter (and the noticeable glance she gives the stableboy) seemed to pave way for an interesting plot. But of course.. it is a "fankenstein", and as such, a monster movie. It is a shame though, for I saw in this movie the moments of something that could actually have been a better movie, if only they had cut out some of the "eyecandy" such as the nudes and the more terrible monster moments with really bad effects.

Rosalba Neri is at her best in the beginning of the move, as she arrives and is with her father and his assistant. After that it all goes downhill. The pride, the strength, the intellectual beauty she seems to embody all comes to a crumbling halt as she turns out to be nothing more than a powerhungry and horny "bitch". Now /that/ was a real turnoff.

Well. This is a could-have-been movie, but it never really gets anywhere, and the plot is as simple as this: a spoiled woman gets her way with men, one way or another. Thats it. The rest is just backdrop.

an r rated B film Horror Blast. It is fairly new so you might recognize some of the actors.

I enjoyed this take on the Frankenstein story, but was startled by the abrupt ending. Apparently, the actual ending and closing credits were lopped off, and some other footage might be missing as well.

It seems the original version runs 90 minutes or more. Also, a Swedish company supposedly cobbled together a complete version several years ago and was going to release it on DVD.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

To say this bears any relationship whatsoever with Mary Shelley's classic novel requires an incredibly thin stretching of the imagination, but if you sit back and enjoy it for what it is--an early '70s low-budget softcore Italian horror flick--it's rather enjoyable.

It's very interesting to see how a movie that receive so many bad reviews is downloaded that much!

Yes, it is "bad" if you let yourself get stucked up with your first impression...
Take your time, there are clever stuff in this movie... It's weirdness factor when seen by our today's eyes make it quite satisfying for people in quest of such thrills. The different degree behind the motivation of the characters is good. At the End you ask yourself who's the true evil one. Don't close your mind because of cheesy skin, easy humor, so so acting. It is a highly enjoyable carricature of old horror movies...

The whole looks a lot like 70's adult sultry pulp fiction.

Withstanding all those bad reviews, I highly recommend this movie!!!

The problems with this film are glaringly evident from the very first frame. Most obvious is the color, various shades of yellow have been used in place of white. In a few scenes the effect is a poor simulation of the sepia-tones of an old photograph. For the rest of the film, the bright yellow skin tones are simply nauseating.

The film was written an directed by Mel Wells, an actor who many will remember for his brilliant performance as the flower shop owner, Gravis Mushnik, in the camp classic, “Little Shop of Horrors” (1960). Unfortunately, Wells was both writer and directory of this stinker and most of its faults are likely his.

“Little Shop or Horrors” was a rare thing, a film that set out to be camp and pulled it off with great success. It would seem that Wells was trying for something similar with “Lady Frankenstein” (“La Figlia di Frankenstein”), but he failed miserably both as writer and director. Throughout the film I consistently found myself wondering why he had included some shots and excluded others. The editing was equally inexplicable. He seems constantly reaching out to make some momentous artistic statement, but it never comes. It is as if he understands the language of composition and montage used by others, but cannot use it to express himself. In the end I am left to conclude that perhaps he had nothing to say.

It is possible that not all the fault lies with Wells. This was apparently an Italian production and it reflects the curious Italian production and acting values of the 1960's and early ‘70's. Some of the script and acting issues are likely due to the film being dubbed from Italian to English. Other issues may well have been dictated by the studio and been beyond Wells’ control.

Roslaba Neri, of whom I know nothing, is excellent as the eponymous female lead and the monster is well done. The rest of the cast, however, is no more than adequate.

All in all, a well told and enjoyable rehash of the Frankenstein story.

I downloaded the MPEG-1 and converted to MPEG-2 with MAGIX program. The result is very good, and the downloading time very short.

Joseph Cotten as Dr. Frankenstein creates a rampaging killing machine. His daughter gives new meaning to wanting a man for his mind and outdoes her dad. Enraged villagers do their thing. I've seen worse, much worse Frankenstein movies. This should be OK for teenagers to watch, but their is female nudity and the potentially shocking murder of a mother and father in front of their very young son.

I downloaded the mpeg1 file. Color is so-so though the print is otherwise good. Audio is fine.

This is absolutely the bottom of the barrel. There's no thrills, no suspense, no shivers, and not much of a plot. Joseph Cotten must have really needed the money to sign up for this pitiful film. Oh, there's some skin, but not enough to justify a download. Besides, you can see that in the thumbnails. This movie gives the word "pathetic" a whole new meaning.

You may remember this movie from the suckiest movie of the year awards 1971.
I don't know why they bothered.
Maybe Joseph Cotten needed some fast cash.